from the elections-have-long-term-consequences dept.
Covered pretty much everywhere (front page of CNN/FOX/younameit).
With the main swing vote in the U.S. Supreme Court leaving, and a replacement nominated by President Trump, the right wing of the court should become clearly dominant, allowing Roe v. Wade opponents, and other right-wing causes, a new chance at victory.
takyon: SCOTUSblog has a round-up of coverage:
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement today, effective July 31, 2018. Amy Howe covered the news for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court. Other early coverage comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Michael D. Shear of The New York Times; Bill Mears of Fox News; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire.News; Nina Totenberg of NPR; Lawrence Hurley of Reuters; Greg Stohr of Bloomberg; and Pete Williams of NBC News. Analysis of Justice Kennedy's legacy comes from Noah Feldman of Bloomberg; Wolf of USA Today; Mears of Fox News; and Reuters staff. Coverage of the reaction from Congress and the President comes from Carl Hulse of The New York Times; Alex Pappas and Mears of Fox News; Seung Min Kim and Josh Dawsey of The Washington Post; and Alex Seitz-Wald and Rebecca Shabad of NBC News. Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg has a piece looking at potential replacements for Kennedy.
Early commentary comes from Jill Lawrence for USA Today; Bill Blum in The Progressive; Emily Bazelon for The New York Times; Elizabeth Slattery for The Daily Signal; Garrett Epps for The Atlantic; Richard Hasen for Slate; Ian Millhiser of Think Progress; and Joshua Matz for The Washington Post. Another piece in the Post comes from Philip Bump, who focuses on control of the Senate. More commentary comes from Scott Lemieux for NBC News and Matt Ford for The New Republic. Andrew Cohen writes for TNR, and he also has a piece in Rolling Stone. Commentary from Vox comes from Dylan Matthews, Andrew Prokop and Matt Yglesias. Pieklo and Imani Gandy released an emergency podcast reacting to the news. Various law professors give their analysis for Stanford Law School Blog.
Anthony Kennedy was sworn in on February 18, 1988.
Related Stories
Judge Brett Kavanaugh named Trump's second Supreme Court justice - live updates
President Trump announced his selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be his second Supreme Court justice Monday night. Speaking in the East Room of the White House, the president said that what mattered to him was "not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require."
"I am pleased to say that I have found, without a doubt, such a person," he said in announcing Kavanaugh's nomination. "There is no one in America more qualified for this position and no one more deserving," the president also said. The D.C. Circuit Appeals Court judge "has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and aproven commitment to equal justice under the law," the president continued. He's "a judge's judge, a true thought leader among his peers. He's a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time."
Kavanaugh thanked the president for the nomination, and in anticipating his coming meetings with senators on Capitol hill tomorrow, said, "I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic." He promised, "If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case and I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."
Within a few days of Justice Anthony Kennedy's announcement that he would retire from the court this summer, Mr. Trump had narrowed the field to four: Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge -- all young and all viewed as conservative. Ultimately, the president settled on Kavanaugh, the establishment favorite.
On the issue everyone wants to know about:
Kavanaugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold it, but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion.
In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court". During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion. Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting. The D.C. Circuit's opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).
See also:
- SCOTUSblog + Round-up + Reactions
- Brett Kavanaugh's track record
- What Brett Kavanaugh could mean for the future of abortion, marriage equality and much more
- Can the Supreme Court confirmation process ever be repaired?
- Press: Democrats must hang tough on high court pick
Previously: SCOTUS's Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The vote was 50-48 in favor of Kavanaugh.
Senators Collins, Flake, and Manchin had already announced their intentions to confirm Kavanaugh before the vote was held. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was previously ready to vote "no", agreed to vote "present" instead so that Senator Steve Daines could attend his daughter's wedding instead of being present in the Senate to support Kavanaugh.
SCOTUSBlog: Kavanaugh confirmed as 114th justice
Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
Previously: SCOTUS's Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
President Trump Nominates Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court
Trump's Supreme Court Pick: ISPs Have 1st Amendment Right to Block Websites
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:30PM (24 children)
With a convincing conservative majority on the Supreme Court to deal with any politically motivated appeals, President Trump finally has a chance to see #CrookedHillary go to jail.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:32PM (14 children)
The idiots are chanting, what say we get one of those big wooden crosses to really seal the deal?
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:34PM (9 children)
Why are the Democrats about to restart their KKK chapters?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:44PM (3 children)
Shhh. We aren't supposed to remind that people that the KKK was the terror wing of the Democratic Party up until Antifa replaced them when the Party made a shift in direction in the 1960s. Ever since the Klan has been a punch line since the first rule of terrorism is you really need a State sponsor or at least a major faction like a national party to provide cover. Without that cover we get the ridiculous current situation where any group of three Klansmen involve one clueless idiot, one actual Klansman and one Fed... or now more likely one idiot, one Fed infiltrator and a local LEO infiltrator stepping on each others' dick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:43AM (2 children)
You go ahead and mention it as often as you want! Racist shitheads were the KKK and I couldn't give two shits what political party they rallied behind. Except the Green party, those people are demons! Oh, and whatever dimension you heil from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:04AM (1 child)
Freudian slip? But Freud as a Jew, who fled Austria, and went to England, to avoid Nazis, but now the Nazis are in England, more than Austria, or even Australia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:43PM
Nope 100% intentional, do you not read the shit jmo writes??
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:01AM
How I wish you posted that under your real pseudoname. ;-) Too awesome.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:45AM
Why are the Democrats about to restart their KKK chapters?
Why bother, the Republicans' are already up and running.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @10:10AM (2 children)
They're not, the parties switched their stances some 50-60 years ago.
I'm not sure how you managed to use Internet, since you have obviously not seen an information source at least since the days of PDP-1.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:02PM
You're not going to get anywhere with these people. They're not thinking; they fire off pre-programmed talking points without ever stopping to assess their truth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:49PM
You're under the mistaken impression that the GP was trying to present information rather than propaganda.
That said, the KKK isn't all that important a force today, mostly because the cops are doing a fair amount of what the KKK used to do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)
Are you implying that #CrookedHillary is afro-American? I find that hard to believe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:15AM
She probably would identify as trans-racial for political gain except being black would apparently make her a Super Predator. [youtube.com] Most and honest and intellectually consistent thing she could do really.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
Upmodding -1 posts because Soylent News doesn't recognize downmodding as useful, which it is. More useful than upmodding trolls.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:19AM
You do whatever the voices in your head tell you to, brother. Just don't complain that everyone else gets to as well if you don't want mocked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:32AM (7 children)
The most likely scenario, should Hillary Clinton be charged with any crimes (which she hasn't been), is that at least 1 out of the 12 jurors is a Clinton supporter and thus guarantees a mistrial or a not guilty verdict, regardless of whether she's guilty. And US due process doesn't allow somebody to be thrown in jail without a jury verdict finding them guilty of something. The same situation is true if Donald Trump, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other well-known political figure is charged with any crimes.
That said, I suspect a lot of Trump supporters would like to see Hillary Clinton thrown in jail without trial, or even summarily executed. If that happened and nothing was done to stop or undo it, then the law no longer matters and we are now living in a dictatorship with Donald Trump as the dictator. Which I suspect isn't something that many Trump supporters would object to.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)
They're fucking idiots if they do. Ponder with me for one second how much dirt and national secrets she would spill if she thought she were going down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:57PM
That's why tyrants make sure their targets don't know it's coming until they've committed suicide with two shots to the back of the head.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DannyB on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:44PM (4 children)
A more likely scenario. Midway through Trump's third term in office, he will gain anti-PARDON powers. Just as a pardon can free anyone for no stated reason, an anti-pardon can imprison anyone for no stated reason.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:55PM (3 children)
Then he isn't a president, he's a king.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:11PM (2 children)
Something I remember from a TEDTalk.
VERY roughly parphrased.
The founders puzzled over what to call the executive. They didn't want to use a term like King because it implied too much power. They were looking for a term that implied as little power as possible. They eventually settled on President. As in "to preside over". That would keep everyone from seeing the president from having too much power, even if merely perceived.
After all, who would ever be impressed by a mere title such as: The President Of The United States
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:45PM (1 child)
That's also why George Washington settled on "Mister President" as the form of address for a president.
But they needn't have worried too much: The only Presidents of the United States of America that I've found impressive were these guys [youtube.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:10AM
The whole situation just makes you want to move out in the country and eat a lot of peaches.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:24AM
I think it would go to a jury trial, and H's big lawyers will create enough uncertainty and doubt to save her.
http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2017/01/mock-trial-of-hillary-clinton-regarding.html [blogspot.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:54PM (64 children)
If we could just get Ginsberg, Breyer and Thomas to go ahead and allow themselves to be replaced in the next year the Court would fade into unimportance, as it should. We should NOT be hanging on the slightest rumor of the leaning of the courts. They should be a known, stable quantity such that a reasonable person could predict their actions with reasonable certainty in the vast majority of cases. This would mean the lower courts would also be able to predict the Supreme Court and could stop the current practice of routinely making outrageous power grabs just to see if Justice Kennedy will go along with it this year. With a solid majority of reasonably young Strict Constructionists on the court there would be stability for a long enough period of time we would lose the habit of expecting the court to suddenly rewrite our laws without notice.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:16AM (42 children)
Fucking hilarious. You really think the conservative justices are actually strict constructionists and follow the "stare decisis" doctrine that should lead to stability? If so, I have a bridge and some excellent land in Florida to sell you. Also, I have some money stuck in an African country, which just needs you to give me your life savings and you will will get back millions. Did you not notice today that the Janus decision today re-wrote the "Abood" decision? Stability, indeed.
"Janus" is such an appropriate name for today's decision, since it shows how two-faced the conservative justices are.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by crafoo on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:21AM (2 children)
Nice ad hominem attacks. Could it be you have no real argument or haven't thought through your faith-based beliefs enough to reasonably defend them? All evidence points to YES.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:30AM
All evidence points to you being a prick, since I provided a specific example from today, showing how jmorris is wrong.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:25AM
He's absolutely correct though. There's not a single strict constitutionalist on the court. Every last one of them is happy to vote how things should be instead of how they're written.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:25AM (38 children)
Rewriting a previous bogus decision is perfectly fine. The current fetish for precedent is improper beyond very narrow bounds. Rewriting laws and the Constitution is not ok. A court packed with Strict Constructionists would spend the first few years tossing a lot of bullcrap the previous courts have imposed on the country along with some obviously unconstitutional crap from Congress and the Executive. But it would all be utterly predictable and one could make plans with a reasonable certainty as to what the courts would and would not be deciding.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:42AM (16 children)
A few points:
- "Strict Constructionists" : Are you paying any attention to the highly partisan nomination process ?
- "tossing a lot of bullcrap the previous courts have imposed on the country" : That's what the Legislative branch is for. If the law is ambiguous and you don't like the interpretation from the judges, write a clear law, and get it voted by the People's elected Congress.
- "The current fetish for precedent is improper" : Wouldn't fetish for precedent be expected from conservative judges? Ever heard of Scalia ?
- "a reasonable certainty as to what the courts would and would not be deciding" : you don't seem to know what the SCOTUS is for. They mostly don't take clear cases. Your case has no chance of coming to their attention unless a whole bunch of lower courts have ruled in inconsistent ways (rare exceptions exist).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:10AM (11 children)
And, that shouldn't happen often. It certainly shouldn't be routine.
I don't know how much I'll like Trump's nominee(s) for Supreme Court: I haven't like many of his other nominees or appointees. But, it will be a relief for America if the various courts begin to rule according to law, instead of politics. Maybe we can see some activist judges disbarred.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:17AM (9 children)
Aren't exactly what the precedents are good for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:04AM (8 children)
Precedents are bad for SCOTUS, they are the ultimate authority and should not be bound by past poor decision making. Fetishism over precedent is, one will note, not something Progs worry in the slightest about. Conservatism does because it is devoted to preserving past Progressive victories and the media is all too happy to rub their noses in their 'duty' to cuck.. As a Reactionary I want those past victories smashed into rubble.
Precedents are much more admirable in a lower court, especially precedent established by SCOTUS. They are supposed to take direction from their superiors, each level obeying the rules and precedent laid down by those above them, Nice orderly, structured society. Peaceful. Uneventful. The courts quietly efficient. Occasionally, as would happen if a supermajority of strict constructionalists take the court it would be appropriate to reexamine the assumptions that went into those past precedents and re-litigate some of them to correct past error and injustice.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:18AM
(original context for the question: "a whole bunch of lower courts have ruled in inconsistent ways". But anyhow, I see it addressed in the second part of your reply)
Hang on... who actually decides what past decision were poor?
Or is it this a judgment to be made depending on the (politically based) nomination of the judges?
Now, if SCOTUS is free to change its mind at a whim, where does this leave your "be utterly predictable and one could make plans with a reasonable certainty as to what the courts would and would not be deciding." for the case of lower courts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:39AM (6 children)
Ah, yes! If only we could go back to 1953! A simpler time, that was!
For simpler minds.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:48PM (5 children)
Most of the simplest minds I've witnessed as of late are the angry millennials howling at the moon over they know not what. Egged on by the Maxine Waters types who are even more simple minded; they have all had a very bad week. Normally I would be filled with schadenfreude, but they've been kicked in the sack so many times this week, that even I'm beginning to feel sorry for them. To top things off, their media mouthpieces are now admitting that their big blue wave could be nothing more than a big blue wish.
The Stormy tempest-in-a-teapot sputtered out when it was revealed that her needs-more-attention-than-a-school-girl attorney was a sleaze. Even the hysterical media has been forced to recognize that the FBI is filled with political partisans and liars. - Excuse me, people with lack of candor - The FBI is eating its own at this point. The new little darling of the media, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, despite the fact she hasn't even faced the mid-term election yet, has already been coronated by the MSM a la Clinton and is spouting off that ICE is running "black" sites. The crazy is incredible and the simple minded left are lapping it up.
The left's dire predictions after Trump's election of World War III and martial law have been answered with a booming economy and record low unemployment. It's hard to run on a platform with a single principle of I hate Trump and every time the left doubles down on the crazy, they energize the opposition. It's delicious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:19PM
I thought it was black and white, with a little hispanic thrown in for flavoring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:52PM (3 children)
You do realize you just outed yourself as a hate mongering piece of crap right? Backed up by bullshit lies, you are the mechanical bull the GOP is letting every corporation get a free ride on and by the time you realize how badly you've been fucked you'll be living in the scrap yard.
Dumbass conservatives fueled solely by hate, dropping all your "morality" for the chance to inflict pain. You ARE the horsemen of the apocalypse and the irony is 100% lost on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:01PM
This loser is undergoing a meltdown
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:48PM (1 child)
Lefty liberals never pass up an opportunity to inject homosexuality into politics.
I never claimed to be a model of morality and the only pain you suffer is self inflicted. You would understand that if you weren't so blinded by uncontrollable and misplaced fury. In the mean time please rage and howl at the moon. Kick out a few more public servants from restaurants. Send threats to innocent ICE agents and their families. Every event helps increase the voter turnout to suppress schizophrenic and hysterical policies proposed by the left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @05:44PM
And you murderous bastards are gunning down journalists for no reason. Yup, keep trying to ride the high road. Amusing how you get all bent out of shape when someone rants the way you do.
Not a surprise, just more projection and hypocrisy from a hateful pile of shit. You, you are the hate filled pile of shit, just to be extra clear.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:03AM
FTFRunaway. Yet more things he knows nothing about, but cannot resist going on at great length about.
If only we could Huckabee him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:18AM
Technically you are of course correct. In a sane world most decisions of SCOTUS would still be 5-4 but instead of ground breaking rulings deciding fundamental social questions they would be unimportant rulings on minutia in corner cases of laws the lower courts were unclear on. And nobody would notice.
Nope. The courts made a lot of these messes itself so it should fix them. It enabled a lot of the overreach of the other branches too by not just remaining silent but encouraging them to overreach as well. Way more than half of what Congress passes in a year doesn't pass the 9th or 10th Amendment test. Most of what the Executive does doesn't pass muster either. Everyone has simply been ignoring that because they really wanted to be doing those things yet they knew there was no way in Hell an Amendment legalizing it could pass.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:29PM (2 children)
At one point, the Supreme Court approved of Japanese internment camps, despite it being blatantly unconstitutional. That sort of precedent needs to be overturned, as well as many others like it. There's no reason to worship precedent or "stability".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:19PM (1 child)
You're replying to the wrong part of the comment. The point was, quite explicitly, that Congress can make new laws when they don't like SCOTUS decisions. That's pretty much the way it was designed to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:03PM
You can't logic with people who only see red. Their minds are clouded by raging hate.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:43AM (19 children)
Yes, judges who say things like the founding farmers and the courts of old could not have envisioned the current situation, so the laws should be reinterpreted to match it are clearly activists new laws in a power grab and should be stopped. If the people really wanted something, they should just amend the constitution.
Oh, wait... [soylentnews.org]
Honest question to both you and the GP... You don't even need to reply to this, just think about it. Do you really want a literally strict constructionist? As an example, you are okay with warrantless wiretaps, unlimited surveillance cameras on you everywhere by the government, the government has the ability to freeze your electric account in a bank at a whim, and countless other things [wikipedia.org]? Is that what you really want?
If it is, okay. If it is not, then what exactly are you fighting against when you complain about activist judges?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 28 2018, @12:55AM (17 children)
Hey, I went on record in that thread that I thought the minority opinion was the right one in the sales tax debacle. I gotta make the time to wade through the actual text of the decision before I'd be willing to get into a long debate over just how they managed to f*ck that one up.
And why wouldn't we expect Strict Constructionists to be able to read the clear text of the 5th Amendment?
But yes, in general I want a DEAD CONSTITUTION. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD. If you don't like what it says, as interpreted by what the words meant when they were written, you pass an Amendment. Period. It is supposed to be hard, to resist change.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:02AM (15 children)
So, not something that would seamlessly adapt to changes in its environment, but instead something which requires specific step changes by an external intelligent designer?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:07AM (14 children)
Exactly. Changes would have to come from We the People instead of nine, usually senile, old fools in robes. Rule of Law requires one to know what the Law is, and in our current system that isn't possible because the current system requires you break the law, take a case to SCOTUS and see if they will rewrite the law to make what you did legal. Which if you think about it is on its face unconstitutional because the law they will write is by definition an ex-post facto law.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:32AM
The bar is too high to make amendments to the constitution.
(Too lazy to link to the process. Google it.)
As a result, you have a constitution that we amend over time in practice but not by changing the written word. Were it easier to amend, then we could follow it more literally. But you still have the problem that you cannot exhaustively write a rule for everything. JUDGEMENT will always be needed, and this requires interpretation. No way around that ever.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:14AM (12 children)
My Gawd, and bless my sole, jmorris is an honest to God Fundamentalist! Goes along with the conservative inability to reason, and read, I guess. But I did not see the European preference for something like the Code Justinian coming from jmorris, and his total throwing overboard of the entire Anglo-American-Germanic Common Law approach! I am shocked, shocked, I say. But I guess it is in line with the paranoid conservative mind-set: the one thing they fear is change, change and uncertainty, change and uncertainty and ambiguity, all that, and social justice. So they desire a GOTT IN HIMMEL, and a DEAD Constitution, A Heavens that Does not change, an Earth that, if not FLAT, at least does not move and is the center of the universe.
BTW, if the Republicans think they can stuff the court and reverse Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education, they really might want to rethink that. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/heres-gop-going-roe-v-wade-lgbt-civil-rights-really-bad-idea/ [rawstory.com] REALLY, Really, really bad idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:24AM (1 child)
Fear change? God-forbid. Please, pass an amendment or fuck on off. The courts are not the place to enact your preferred legislation.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:40AM
So you do not understand what common law is, and the role of precedent and bench-made law? No legal scholar are you!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:27AM
TFL(inked)A
Doesn't matter to them, the conservative mind is "Fuck off, I got mine, don't touch it".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:07AM (8 children)
Let them do it. I, at this point, am fully in "let it burn" mode. Let them do it, and let them be mobbed and torn from the benches and literally ripped apart limb from limb. The entire system is corrupt. Let it end.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:31AM (3 children)
Well, no, the conservatives are right here. If they attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, Americans will pass at least legislation, if not a constitutional amendment, affirming a woman's choice, and more, affirming the right to privacy, which is the controversial basis of Roe v. Wade. Once these things are in law, the conservatives have no leg to stand upon. It will be Ireland all over again, and for Runaway, in spades! The court can no more enforce a cultural standard than presidential executive orders can. And the real problem here, as everywhere, is that he conservatives, whether TMB style libertariantard alt-right sympathizers or the really profoundly ignorant evangelicals, do not understand that they have lost the culture wars. You go against gays, or immigrants, especially children immigrants, you will lose. You go against pot, you will lose. You go against the working class, with tax cuts for the rich and tariffs that cause the next great depression, you will lose. Is Donald tired of losing, yet?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:57AM (2 children)
Are you fucking serious? They haven't "lost the culture wars," they've *won* them as soon as another Gorsuchite "justice" is placed, and if it looks like they're going to lose them, they'll do the equivalent of detonating every nuke they have over the homeland so there won't BE a culture to go to war for any longer. You're much too optimistic.
Read J-Mo's posts. Imagine the look in his eyes. Multiply that by millions. We are dealing with the political equivalent of Muslim suicide bomber fanatics here, do you understand this? It's *over." We've passed the tipping point. This isn't going to get better until we're all dead, when these idiots wake up in Hell and realize they've been had.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:55AM
One word: millennials. (and those after them).
If they indeed accept the bullshit pushed on their throat, then yes, everything freezes in the "conservative"** culture and they worth their faith.
---
** there's actually no such a thing as unitary "conservative culture" - just look at the current congress, they can't agree what to replace the Obamacare with.
The diehard conservatives (the ones that feel sure on "fuck you, I got mine") want it replaced with nothing/the law of the jungle.
The ones that still want to be reelected for same tens of years ahead think what is the minimum [vox.com] still required for their reelection [newsweek.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:11PM
Eh, while I think we definitely need to remain vigilant for Nazi 2.0 I think the rabid RWNJs are not even close to a large enough group. A good portion of Trump supporters are people like TMB, and while his moral compass is pretty fixated on himself I don't think he's stand idly by as people like jmorris start executing people. I do believe that we'll be able to roll back the worst shit Trump does pretty quickly as the country winds down from this political temper tantrum.
The worst case scenario is the most likely one to come about, full dictatorship. However, as I said above people like TMB and possibly even Runaway might finally come to their senses and see how batshit insane the RWNJs are.
Don't worry boys, we liberals see how batshit crazy the PC brigade can be. I watched a comedy show and started cringing at how much they were struggling to insert racism and offense into dialogues. Come join us in reality and stop supporting the crazies just because you can get your rage-on against the "elitist libruhls".
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:28PM (3 children)
The problem with "Let them do it", is that part of their plan is to deny a vote to as many people as possible that might disagree with them, and, failing an outright denial of voting rights, to make those votes not effective.
The Supreme Court appears to be ready to go along with partisan gerrymandering.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:55PM (2 children)
And we can't stop it. It's going to get worse before it gets better. We're past the tipping point now, don't you get it? Whatever happens, we're committed to at least a 50-year cleanup of this mess, and that's assuming we start in 2018, *and* we don't end up in a permanent depression, *and* WWIII doesn't break out, *and* we don't get invaded and taken over by some other country, *and* climate change doesn't go faster than we thought *and* no freak disaster happens.
Look, I'm not afraid to die. I should have died almost a decade ago; in a very real sense I *did* die then and my body just hasn't gotten the message yet. If these idiots succeed, the world they create will be one in which the living envy the dead. I'd rather not see it come to that, but you know, I'm one poor woman with no backup and no support system, teetering on the edge, just waiting for one piece of bad luck to push me over...and bad luck I have in spades, to the point my life story reads like a rejected sitcom script. Things are looking grim, and they look grimmest for the ones at the most disadvantage. I'm white and not too disabled and not sick and can pass for straight because I "present femme," so that gives me a *little* survivability, but that may not count for much just due to how much of this is going to be economic...
When this is all over I am personally going to visit Hell with the express intent of finding all the traitorous sons of bitches like J-Mo and Entropy and spend some time torturing them myself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:22PM (1 child)
I am one of your advocates around here, and I get that we all spew some hateful rhetoric around here, but "When this is all over I am personally going to visit Hell with the express intent of finding all the traitorous sons of bitches like J-Mo and Entropy and spend some time torturing them myself." is really not a great statement. Don't sully your own soul getting on to their level, because fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to sufferrrringgggg. *cough auuuuuugh lite-fwoooosh*
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:13AM
Her brain is full of spiders, she's got cobwebs in her soul.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:34AM
Every law, everywhere is interpreted by judges. No law is ever crystal clear. Take the above snippet from the 5th, which you claim is very clear.
What constitutes public use? Suppose some property will be used for a secret US base and is taken from its rightful owner, can the government claim is not for public use and therefore the amendment doesn’t apply? Is it public use only if the general public can actually use it?
Or it applies to anything the government takes, whatever use it will be? If yes, when the government takes a drug dealer’s van and turns it into a police car, should the drug dealer be compensated?
What about just compensation? Exactly what constitutes just compensation?
See how hard is interpret “crystal clear” laws?
That is why precedent is very important. It guides current judges on interpreting the law is a manner consistent with previous judgments, giving certainty to the people.
As some else pointed out, the SCOTUS comes into play when different judges rule differently on similar cases, to settle what should be the proper interpretation going forward. And that is why the SCOTUS will never be, and has never been, unimportant.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:02PM
What the heck? "Are you okay with these things that this Amendment I'm citing explicitly forbids?" Uh, no...
The Man being willing to sign a warrant for anything is a separate issue. So yes, I want somebody who believes in the Fourth Amendment as written, which would be a strict constructionist.
Or is this some kind of weird-ass argument that a strict constructionist only respects the original Constitution, and for some reason is ignoring the Bill of Rights? I don't even.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:33AM
Since we're going for predictability, let's remove all the conservative justices from the supreme court and replace them with with the most hard-left socialist liberals we can find. Their actions will still be completely predictable, so that's 100% OK with you, right? You'll still be happy because everything is predictable, and I'll be happy because the country won't be run off a cliff by a bunch of conservatives and the new justices will quickly work to undo the damage the conservatives have done in the past two years. Win-win, Right?
Or did you mean to say it's not predictability you want to see, but rather a bunch of fucked up decisions by a bunch of fucked in the head conservatards that will further fuck up this already fucked up country?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:40AM (10 children)
So, if I understand you correctly, what you want is 9 justices that agree with you on all matters of political importance.
As far as SCOTUS fading into obscurity, what it sounds like is that you'd be happy to get rid of the judiciary entirely. Just let the president do whatever the heck he wants, regardless of what the law says, right? We had a system like that in America ... in 1772. I for one have no interest in returning to a monarchy, regardless of who the monarch is.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:03AM (9 children)
Well, he did call himself a reactionary in this very thread. Sadly, I think he's actually going to get what he (thinks he) wants in re: the SCOTUS. This is a dark time in US history, and that is saying something considering how dark most of it already was. I'll take some consolation from knowing how it's going to end for him, though...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:55PM (8 children)
"Reactionary" is such a stupid insult. Not every change is a good idea just because it's a change.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:14PM (7 children)
Tango, you're conflating reactionary and conservative again. Conservatives are, at least definitionally, the ones who wish to conserve--geddit?--what works, instead of changing for change's sake. Reactionaries are the ones who want to turn the clock back centuries.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:47PM (6 children)
Sounds like a pretty reasonable case can be made that they are in fact synonyms.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:13PM (2 children)
Oh yeah? Go ask J-Mo which he is and get back to me. Quit the fucking dictionary-trolling. If they weren't two different things we wouldn't need two different names for them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:19AM
Boobs, boobies, hooters, knockers, chi-chis, ta-tas, fun-bags, breasts, bazoombas, tits, titties, gazongas, dirty pillows, jugs, etc... I take it my point's been made?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @01:33PM
Offtopic? Really? I directly showed a claim you made to be ludicrous. You even mod with your feelz instead of your reason I guess.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:45PM (2 children)
I've always seen it as a gradient - Radical Reactionary ... so the true Reactionaries are the extreme wing of the Conservatives, just as the Radicals are the extreme wing of the Liberals. There might be other groups even farther out beyond either end, but honestly I've never wanted to explore those areas. The extremes scare me. I'm pretty sure they were damaged somehow in their formative years, to have such disregard for anyone not like themselves. (Pick either end and that statement applies - they're alike in villainy, if not in espoused virtues.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:47PM
Sorry - forgot I was stepping on HTML tags again with the ASCII arrows.
Trying again - I've always seen it as a gradient - Radical -- Liberal -- -- Conservative -- Reactionary ... so the true Reactionaries are the extreme wing of the Conservatives, just as the Radicals are the extreme wing of the Liberals. There might be other groups even farther out beyond either end, but honestly I've never wanted to explore those areas. The extremes scare me. I'm pretty sure they were damaged somehow in their formative years, to have such disregard for anyone not like themselves. (Pick either end and that statement applies - they're alike in villainy, if not in espoused virtues.)
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:46PM
Incorrect! Similar to the trend of equating Democrats and Republicans it is a false one.
At least in this current age Radicals are much less likely to murder people or infringe on basic human rights compared to Reactionaries. The main shared attribute is the tendency to hold extreme views that won't work in reality and willfully ignore anything to the contrary. Both groups will attack their "enemies" but as stated above the Reactionaries are much more prone to serious levels of violence.
The division is being spurred on by those who want us divided and it is sad to see the Radicals embracing violence as a regular tool more and more with groups like Antifa. Once they truly become equivalent we will likely see real civil war / domestic terrorism as each side embarks on campaigns of vengeance.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:03AM (8 children)
That would be a catastrophe, We already have a President trying to undo the practice of legislating via Executive Order. You want the Courts to stop legislating from the bench. We won't have anyone left in Washington willing to legislate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:31AM (7 children)
Not true. Buy off enough congressmen and they'll legislate for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:10AM (6 children)
Doesn't seem to be working with immigration or health-care, they only passed the tax-cut for the wealthy . . . wait a minute! TMB Shoots! He Scores! But he is still an idiot.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:31AM (5 children)
Yeah, I get that a lot. I have hopes that one fine day folks like you will fight off the cognitive dissonance long enough to consider that me being right on pretty much everything means they need to reexamine which of us are using our brains sub-optimally.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:42AM (4 children)
Oh, Mortuary Brazzire! If only you understood what it is that you just agreed to. You, too, can be a SJw!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:22AM (3 children)
Nah, I'd have to beat my own ass if I ever started blaming shit on others instead of taking care of business.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:29AM (2 children)
Your autoflagellationis really nobody's business, unless you are paying to have it done.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @03:01AM (1 child)
I'm confused. Who would I be paying to autoflagellate me? Is this some Keynesian thing? Do you need a mobius penis?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 01 2018, @03:17AM
Yes, I know. It is rather obvious to everyone. And I don't think that word means what you think it means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:58PM
That makes no sense because the court only hears cases where there was disagreement in the lower courts. The entire purpose is to hear contentious cases.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:59AM
The constitution is very clear about the president having the right to keep people from entering the country. There also happens to be a pointless law that redundantly gives him that right.
The decision thus should have been unanimous, except for the fact that the case never should have reached the supreme court in the first place.
The fact that 4 judges saw fit to completely ignore the constitution is horrifying. We have a process for chucking judges who are corrupt, incompetent, and otherwise unable to properly do their job. We need to get it done.
We can start with the racist "Wise Latina".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:28AM (9 children)
Next time maybe the Dems will run someone besides the one bitch in the nation that could possibly lose to Donald Fucking Trump. I realize I'm asking a lot here, yes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:17AM (1 child)
Yeah but it was her turn, checkmate fascist.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:32AM
Speaking of turns, aren't you supposed to be in the barrel?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:55AM (3 children)
You blame us because Nazis and backwood louts came out of the woodwork for that orange A.D.D clown?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:52PM (1 child)
Classic projection. It is YOUR fault we chose the worst possible presidential candidate! lawl
HRC would have been another round of the same-old-thing, but anyone who thought Trump would actually fix anything or even dismantle the evil parts of government, well they have a malfunctioning brain. The "burn it all down!" arguments were the only ones that came close to being valid, but the chance was so remote as to be a stupid choice anyway. Trump burned the good things and somehow increased the corruption we wanted to get rid of!
And they tell us it is our fault. Fucking pathetic.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:25AM
We? I voted for the pothead. Anyone who voted for either of the major party shitstains deserves to be executed for intentionally foisting something so vile on their fellow citizens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @02:26AM
I blame YOU because you ran a candidate who couldn't beat Cheeto Jesus. You could have run a pet rock and done better.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:12AM (2 children)
I agree with you... Trump did not win as much as Hillary lost the election for herself. I don't like either... but the fact is that Hillary assumed she won already and did nothing.
However, the real problem is the damn 2 party system. As long as it continues to exist each party continues to only put up someone only to beat the other guy.(lowest Common Denominator) Without the damned 2 party system we may actually get a few candidates that are worth voting for..
Think of it, how many times are you voting for someone as the lesser of two evils, instead of someone you actually want to win.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:23AM (1 child)
A line I heard during an election a couple years ago in Alaska was to
I liked this. I vote third party in the presidential elections to try to get the numbers for any candidate that isn't a republicrat up.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:45PM
Voting 3rd party is the only way to break this cycle.
Though everyone that benefits from the 2 party system spreads the continued lie that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away. It will be true only until enough people recognize the lie.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P